Jump to content
IGNORED

TTH Thinks the sexual revolution has made all women sluts


SpeakNow

Recommended Posts

This! I bet the young co-eds at Stanford are hardly beating down this guy's door, and it doesn't matter if their private parts are still fresh in the crate or have seen several miles of bad road. A hateful, sexist misogynistic jerk is hardly a prize.

So... this guy can't meet anyone's standard, even though these are people who are supposed to have low standards.

I want to shoot this asshole in the balls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Check out the beginning line of Laura's last comment. Does anyone else find this incredibly creepy ?

Laura writes:

Oh, I don’t agree. A sweet virginal lass is of eternal and unparalleled appeal, provided she has other good qualities too

What if she's ugly?

Let's say there is a good, Christian girl at school who is saving herself for the man she wants to marry? She has every godly virtue that a good Christian Boy is looking for.

Except maybe she has bad skin, and crooked teeth, and thin limp hair, and thick glasses, and at least 20 extra pounds on her. Would Viking Son still think she was his ideal mate just because she wasn't a "slut"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of her commenters must read FJ...she quoted something I posted earlier. Also, the genius of TTH is showing. Apparently, calling someone a slut is a sign of respect.

Casey writes:

I’m an avid reader of your blog. I do, however, feel the need to add my two cents to this debate.

Here is why I have an issue with Kristor’s son calling women “sluts†and equating them to used toilet paper. The second most important commandment in the Bible (after loving God) is to love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:36-40). Calling women sluts is certainly not loving. If we want people to reform their ways, we ought to love them. We must bring them to the truth through love. Name calling and bashing will not bring people to see something from a different perspective. I will only drive a further wedge between these women and people like us who want to spread a message to them. While we should not be silent and therefore complicit in their sin, we must think carefully about how we take action so that our actions bring about positive results.

Also, let’s not forget, it takes two to tango. Behind every “slut†there is a male who engaged in a sexual act with her. Why should the women take all the shame? We must raise our sons to resist temptation/the urge to engage in sexual acts. We cannot and should not place all the blame on the woman.

Laura writes:

No, I disagree. As Kristor explained in the previous entry, the act of calling someone a “slut†— in the right place and for the right reasons and by the right person — can be a form of respect. If his son did not have high regard of women, he would not be disappointed and repelled. But, remember, Kristor’s son was not standing on campus pointing to “sluts†and calling them “used toilet paper.†I doubt he has ever used that language in public at all. He did not advocate doing that. I actually wish some men would do that — at the right time and in the right place. Strong language is definitely in order. But I don’t think anyone here advocates over-use of it.

As far as women taking more of the blame, the reason for the double standard has always been that women are more restrained by nature and their modesty is more highly prized. But, I agree, that can be taken too far and of course men are responsible too.

Truthfully, in this day and age of female independence, I don’t understand why being called a “slut†is such a wounding experience. That’s not to say I advocate doing it often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, at least I'm enjoying myself. :dance:

Same. I'm having a wonderful life thanks to the sexual revolution. The fact that it makes me less "marriageable" in the eyes of some misogynistic, entitled dickwad is a bonus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if she's ugly?

Let's say there is a good, Christian girl at school who is saving herself for the man she wants to marry? She has every godly virtue that a good Christian Boy is looking for.

Except maybe she has bad skin, and crooked teeth, and thin limp hair, and thick glasses, and at least 20 extra pounds on her. Would Viking Son still think she was his ideal mate just because she wasn't a "slut"?

Well, I have some skin conditions (roseacea and keratosis pilaris), crooked teeth, glasses and definitely more than 20 extra pounds on me, but I think I look awesome. Beauty is still in the eye of the beholder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same. I'm having a wonderful life thanks to the sexual revolution. The fact that it makes me less "marriageable" in the eyes of some misogynistic, entitled dickwad is a bonus.

Right. If I'm weeding out jerkbags like Imaginary Aryan Son, that's reason enough to keep on slutting it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... this guy can't meet anyone's standard, even though these are people who are supposed to have low standards.

I want to shoot this asshole in the balls.

Not to mention, you have to be a fairly intelligent person to be accepted to go to school there...it's one of the best schools in the US. I don't think I'm taking a leap here saying that most of the women are academically inclined and are more interested in their studies than say, Kristor Jr.

It must get to his goat that he is surrounded by intelligent, sexually open women who are not one bit interested in him. The only way he can feel better about himself is to denigrate these ladies. Yep, I can see how this becomes a vicious cycle for this kid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sexual revolution didn't magically turn the "ladies" of the past into "sluts." Shockingly women have always enjoyed sex and have always had sex outside of marriage. The sexual revolution just meant that women suddenly didn't have to worry as much about the "shame" attached to a woman enjoying sex outside of marriage. Men could pretty much always have as much sex with as many women (or men depending on the societal norms/how well they kept it quiet) as were available, but have never truly been shamed in the way that women have been. Even so, women have always enjoyed sex, very often with multiple partners, they just learned to be secretive, so as not to be stoned. Men's obsession with ensuring paternity turned female sexuality into something to be hidden. The sexual revolution gave permission for women to own the sexual feelings that they had always felt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few facts about Stanford University (source: Wikipedia):

Student body

Stanford enrolled 6,887 undergraduate and 8,779 graduate students in the 2010-2011 year. Women comprised 48% of undergraduates and 37% of professional and graduate students.

Stanford's current community of scholars includes:

17 Nobel Prize laureates;

137 members of the National Academy of Sciences;

95 members of National Academy of Engineering;

62 members of Institute of Medicine;

258 members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences;

19 recipients of the National Medal of Science;

2 recipients of the National Medal of Technology;

30 members of the National Academy of Education;

43 members of American Philosophical Society;

56 fellows of the American Physics Society (since 1995);

4 Pulitzer Prize winners;

24 MacArthur Fellows;

7 Wolf Foundation Prize winners;

6 Koret Foundation Prize winners;

2 ACL Lifetime Achievement Award winners;

14 AAAI fellows;

3 Presidential Medal of Freedom winners.

And one blonde, muscular Viking lad, simultaneously occupying the moral high ground and flouncing because the male/female student ratio limits his odds with the wimminfolk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few facts about Stanford University (source: Wikipedia):

Student body

Stanford enrolled 6,887 undergraduate and 8,779 graduate students in the 2010-2011 year. Women comprised 48% of undergraduates and 37% of professional and graduate students.

Stanford's current community of scholars includes:

17 Nobel Prize laureates;

137 members of the National Academy of Sciences;

95 members of National Academy of Engineering;

62 members of Institute of Medicine;

258 members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences;

19 recipients of the National Medal of Science;

2 recipients of the National Medal of Technology;

30 members of the National Academy of Education;

43 members of American Philosophical Society;

56 fellows of the American Physics Society (since 1995);

4 Pulitzer Prize winners;

24 MacArthur Fellows;

7 Wolf Foundation Prize winners;

6 Koret Foundation Prize winners;

2 ACL Lifetime Achievement Award winners;

14 AAAI fellows;

3 Presidential Medal of Freedom winners.

And one blonde, muscular Viking lad, simultaneously occupying the moral high ground and flouncing because the male/female student ratio limits his odds with the wimminfolk.

:clap:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sexual revolution didn't magically turn the "ladies" of the past into "sluts." Shockingly women have always enjoyed sex and have always had sex outside of marriage. The sexual revolution just meant that women suddenly didn't have to worry as much about the "shame" attached to a woman enjoying sex outside of marriage. Men could pretty much always have as much sex with as many women (or men depending on the societal norms/how well they kept it quiet) as were available, but have never truly been shamed in the way that women have been. Even so, women have always enjoyed sex, very often with multiple partners, they just learned to be secretive, so as not to be stoned. Men's obsession with ensuring paternity turned female sexuality into something to be hidden. The sexual revolution gave permission for women to own the sexual feelings that they had always felt.

Not to mention that the sexual revolution meant that women didn't need to worry as much as unwanted pregnancy through sex with a man - women have always enjoyed sex with other women with no risk of unwanted pregnancy :dance:

Of course women had to be secretive about that too, but it was easier to hide than a pregnancy, especially in all-female environments eg convents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She seems to have removed the entry. Wonder why...

Because she can't stand the heat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, because male violence against unapologetically sexually active women is a recent phenomenon. OH WAIT.

Christian women face their own struggles and pressures. You will find them at campus parties, in small black dresses with too much eyeshadow, tagging along behind their more audacious friends, nursing their one drink for the night, before leaving early.

Or if you're me, a Christian woman at university was found in jeans and trainers in the student union bar for the karaoke night, drinking pink cider.

The sex-promotion culture is truly insane in college campuses, beyond what wider society can imagine. The Vagina Monologues and slut-walks are just the most visible aspects. The social pressure cannot be understated. To give one last example, most LGBT groups will pass-out little placards with words to the effect of “LGBTs are welcome here.†You are supposed to pin them to your door as a sign of tolerance. It is ostensibly an voluntary act, but in practice, it is not. If all doors have them, and yours does not, your omission is noticed. It will be up to your son to decide what to do in these cases.

FUCK. YOU. Sexual awareness and body confidence is not sex promotion. Owning your sexuality is not sex promotion. You can be gay and be a virgin, moron!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh god, I can't even read that. I started on the 'how to survive college a virgin' one, and I could feel my arteries calcifying. TTH is bad for my health.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christian students wear small black dresses with too much eyeshadow?

I shall tell all my friends we were doin it rong.

(Some of us had just one drink, I'll give her that.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both those posts were incredibly creepy. The Lousewife and her commenters are hitting new lows.

And I don't recognise that version of a campus Christian at all. The ones I knew at uni were either fundie (and did not attend parties with drink, which in Scotland is all parties) or they were just normal. They may or may not have drunk alcohol but no one was keeping tabs on that. They certainly seemed to have a good time.

I also don't understand this relentless sexual pressure that you supposedly get on US campuses, and suspect strongly it ain't true. Now I am not much of a looker which may be why I didn't get pressurised :D but I never remember this happening at uni. We were quite grown up about sex. People had it, or didn't, and no one cared much either way.

There are annoying people on campus. I was one of them, having become a Marxist and a student almost simultaneously. But the way the Lousewife's mates describe it, college is Babylon crossed with the unholy offspring of Sodom and a whorehouse. It just wasn't like that when I was there, were we doing it wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So audacious = non Christian? What a dumbass.

BTW, the most strict non drinkers on campuses I know are Muslim. So... again... dumbass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's slightly OT but the Lousewife reproduces Kidist's post about Michelle Obama. I am not an Obama fan politically but I fail to understand how anyone could look at Michelle and not see how attractive she is. Kidist also has a moan about her daughters: Malia is strong featured and takes after her dad, she is not pretty but she's something better, striking. Malia is the sort of person you take a second look at, impressed.

It's just mental, especially when you think of how the Lousewife looks. She'll be winning about as many beauty prizes as me, IOW none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's slightly OT but the Lousewife reproduces Kidist's post about Michelle Obama. I am not an Obama fan politically but I fail to understand how anyone could look at Michelle and not see how attractive she is. Kidist also has a moan about her daughters: Malia is strong featured and takes after her dad, she is not pretty but she's something better, striking. Malia is the sort of person you take a second look at, impressed.

It's just mental, especially when you think of how the Lousewife looks. She'll be winning about as many beauty prizes as me, IOW none.

Following the OT and warning for discussion of appearances rather than ability, Malia Obama has runway-model looks, IMO. Sasha has a traditionally 'cute' face with almond eyes and dimples, but they are both attractive girls.

Whenever I hear of a US conservatives bash those girls for their looks I know they're being racist/ dickish about the opposition's child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Following the OT and warning for discussion of appearances rather than ability, Malia Obama has runway-model looks, IMO. Sasha has a traditionally 'cute' face with almond eyes and dimples, but they are both attractive girls.

Whenever I hear of a US conservatives bash those girls for their looks I know they're being racist/ dickish about the opposition's child.

They did the same thing to Chelsea Clinton. Some of them are racist, even if they themselves don't realize it (the guy who shouted "You lie!" at the President comes to mind), and all of them pander to the racists in their base, but mostly they're just assholes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bet Son is actually gay and making up some parentally-acceptable tirade to explain why he isn't finding much in the way of females worthy of his attention.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner.

Given what his mom is probably like (extrapolating from personality types who follows the Stinking Housewife) he probably hates all women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.